Oak double car port

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 October 2025 by Ian McHugh DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 November 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/D/25/3371385 Pastures Green, Main Street, Honington, NG32 2PG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs M Wing against the decision of South Kesteven District Council. • The application Ref is S25/0747. • The development proposed is an oak double car port. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached single-storey bungalow, which is situated at the beginning/end of Main Street, on the edge of the countryside. A public footpath runs alongside the property on its western side. The front garden of the bungalow is bounded by a low wall on the frontage and fencing alongside the footpath, but the property is generally open to public view. 4. The proposal is to construct an oak-framed/boarded car port within the front garden of the dwelling. It would measure approximately 6.6m x 6.1m with a ridge height of approximately 3.4m. A previous application for a taller structure was refused by the Council (S24/2039) and the current proposal seeks to overcome the Council’s earlier concerns. 5. Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan (LP) seeks, amongst other things, to promote good design and ensure that development does not have an adverse effect on the streetscene and the character of the area. This policy accords with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF), which contains similar provisions. The Council contends that the proposal conflicts with Policy DE1, because of its siting and effect on the streetscene. 6. I acknowledge that matters of design and visual impact can be subjective, but in this case, I share the Council’s concerns. Whilst the proposed car port would benefit the applicants by providing shelter for their vehicles, it would be an unduly prominent and intrusive feature in the streetscene. There are no other similar structures within front gardens along this stretch of Main Street, and the proposal Appeal Decision APP/E2530/D/25/3371385 2 would, therefore, be at odds with the predominant character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy DE1 of the LP and with the provisions of the NPPF, as referred to above. 7. In reaching my decision, I have considered the appellants’ argument that the impact of the car port could be mitigated by planting along the boundaries of the site. However, I am not persuaded that this would be sufficient to make the proposal acceptable, due to the position, height and overall scale of the structure. Conclusion 8. For the above reasons, it is concluded that the appeal be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR